as if COVID wasn't bad enough ............

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Ninja

This was a really cool article be neat to hear some of your guys take on it. I just like how they break some stuff down
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Doesn't appear that way in practice. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true?

If you were a bystander and saw what they were doing to this guy would you stick your neck out?
Are you trying to justify inaction? I think I would have said something, at the very least. A small group could have rushed Chauvin and pushed him off- that would have saved a life. I doubt the officers would have shot unarmed people when it was being recorded.

If a crowd watches something like this and does nothing, they share the guilt. The officers had no weapons in hand and in fact, Chauvin had one hand in his pocket- that's a clear sign that he felt no threat from the crowd. If anyone had thought to remind the jag that the event was being recorded by many cameras and that it would surely be made public, the outcome might have been different.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Well, before the revolution, the American colonies were the Brits. It's not like they were an occupying force. It was as much a civil war as a rebellion. Thousands of loyalists emigrated to the northern (Canadian) colonies during and after the revolution.

As for Canadian independence, we weren't in any hurry...I guess we didn't realize we were being oppressed.:D In fact, it wasn't until the American Civil War before there was any real impetus for the Canadian colonies to unite and form a country. With the massive size of the Union army, there was a fear that after defeating the south, there would be a temptation to fulfill "manifest destiny" and march north.

I have no wish to derail the thread, so do not adjust your set and return to the regularly scheduled broadcast.
Seriously? They thought the US would try to invade Canada? How? With what? Reconstruction came with a huge cost and invading would have meant war with England. Besides- the country was still reeling from Lincoln's assassination.
 
Dan

Dan

Senior Audioholic
Seriously? They thought the US would try to invade Canada? How? With what? Reconstruction came with a huge cost and invading would have meant war with England. Besides- the country was still reeling from Lincoln's assassination.

I really don't think many folks wanted to invade Canada after the Civil War as the North was quite war weary and had to police the South. I am not aware of what Canada was thinking though. HOWEVER, before the civil war there was widespread feeling about annexing Canada going back to a failed invasion in 1775. Everything named Montgomery in this country is named after the general who died leading an attempt to storm the citadel in Quebec. The feelings are mentioned repeatedly in the early part of the republic and incursions into Canada happened frequently in the war of 1812 most notably the battle of the Thames in Ontario. The South before the covol war wanted Cuba and central America to expand the slave territory and thus increase their political representation in Washington. Perhaps the Canadians fears were not unfounded?
 
Dan

Dan

Senior Audioholic
So last night peaceful protesters in DC were forcibly moved off public land several blocks with teargas, stun grenades and a phalanx of shielded federal police all so Trump could give a short speech and walk across the street to a church for a photop. He made a special point to address the protection of second amendment rights which are not an issue in this situation while trampling the EXACT point of the first amendment. Any Trump heads out there wanna explainn how this is a good idea?
 
Dan

Dan

Senior Audioholic
My lawyer friend brought up an interesting point. It is illegal in all 50 states and federally to demonstrate while wearing a mask. (I'm taking him at his word on this.) The law was written specifically to keep the Klan from marching in disguise. Obviously the masks are there for a different reason, but it's interesting how the law now applies to the opposite end of the spectrum.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Field Marshall
The problem is it was not just a rogue cop that precipitated this crisis. How many incidents like this have to occur before we call it widespread? I don't condone the destruction of property, but I can understand the frustrations that fuels these protests. A cop killed a guy in front of a crowd, and the other officers stood around like it was routine. I am guessing that is because it was routine. And you know damn well that the worst that would have happened to those cops would have been a slap on the wrist were it not for mass riots.

You know what would have gone a huge way in defusing this situation: for the political leadership of the city to admit there was a problem and then to have a serious plan to fix that problem. But that would require acknowledging an ugly reality, and your political leadership doesn't seem to have the stomach for that.
Correct, I stated the same during the beginning of this thread, with respect to Floyd the 'locals' screwed up big time. As for the frustration in this aftermath, again, a long time in the making, but this senseless violence, again, has nothing to do with Mr Floyd. To my point I assume most witnessed Mr Floyds brother yesterday in his plea to the masses.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
I really don't think many folks wanted to invade Canada after the Civil War as the North was quite war weary and had to police the South. I am not aware of what Canada was thinking though. HOWEVER, before the civil war there was widespread feeling about annexing Canada going back to a failed invasion in 1775. Everything named Montgomery in this country is named after the general who died leading an attempt to storm the citadel in Quebec. The feelings are mentioned repeatedly in the early part of the republic and incursions into Canada happened frequently in the war of 1812 most notably the battle of the Thames in Ontario. The South before the covol war wanted Cuba and central America to expand the slave territory and thus increase their political representation in Washington. Perhaps the Canadians fears were not unfounded?
I could understand attempting this during the War of 1812, but not after the Civil War.

I can only imagine the Canadian conspiracy theorists- "They want to take over Canada, eh! We gotta nip this in the bud, tout suite".

The Caribbean countries used slavery before America even existed, with slaves brought from Africa by the British, Spanish and Portuguese, mostly. Ironic, that by the time of the Civil War, slaves were barely seen as 'necessary' because of advances brought by the Industrial Revolution.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
I used to work with a guy, an American from upstate NY, who went to McGill University in Montreal. He used to tell me how surprised he was to hear the same widespread fears of US invasion among most Canadian students he knew there. Whether it's true or not, paranoid or not, it is a widely held belief among Canadians. Most Americans, including myself, are surprised by this.

Dan already pointed out some facts of history that are worth repeating.
  • During the Revolutionary War, an American army really did invade Canada in 1775. It failed.
  • In 1845 we took Texas which had rebelled against Mexico, but Mexico still claimed it. In 1846 we really did invade Mexico, taking large portions of land from them, including what would become the states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, as well as portions of Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
  • During the years preceding the US Civil War there were several abortive attempts by Southerners to capture and annex Cuba, Nicaragua and Honduras. Their goal was to annex them as slave-holding territories, with the intention of making them US slave states. Look up William Walker.
The Caribbean countries used slavery before America even existed, with slaves brought from Africa by the British, Spanish and Portuguese, mostly. Ironic, that by the time of the Civil War, slaves were barely seen as 'necessary' because of advances brought by the Industrial Revolution.
Although this was claimed at the time by some, it was far from reality. The USA had banned importing new slaves in 1808. But the international slave trade was banned by Great Britain in 1807, enforcing it in the Atlantic and Caribbean with the Royal Navy. Ever since then, slaves held within the southern US became increasingly valuable. So valuable, that slaves became more valuable than land in some cotton growing areas. The widespread use of US-born slaves in the southern states long after 1808, strongly argues against the idea that slaves were barely necessary because of the advances brought on by the industrial revolution.

In fact, growing cotton with slave labor is what prevented the south from entering and benefiting from the industrial age. Plantation owners would rather sell cotton as a raw material to the industrial north, as well as Great Britain and France. They would rather pocket the profits, than pay for developing any local cotton fabric weaving industry in the south.

So claiming that the industrial revolution had made slaves unnecessary is untrue. If anything, it is part of the false 'revisionist history', spread by the south in the decades after 1880, that claimed the Civil War was not about slavery, but about state's rights.
 
Last edited:
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
The law was written specifically to keep the Klan from marching in disguise. Obviously the masks are there for a different reason, but it's interesting how the law now applies to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Care to elaborate on this? Only republicans are placing blame for the property destruction solely upon leftist groups, the dreaded antifa. But those being arrested in my jurisdiction include some extreme right wingers, self proclaimed boogaloo bois and iii%ers. Seems that masks are a benefit to criminals of all ideological stripes.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
My lawyer friend brought up an interesting point. It is illegal in all 50 states and federally to demonstrate while wearing a mask. (I'm taking him at his word on this.) The law was written specifically to keep the Klan from marching in disguise. Obviously the masks are there for a different reason, but it's interesting how the law now applies to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Care to elaborate on this? Only republicans are placing blame for the property destruction solely upon leftist groups, the dreaded antifa. But those being arrested in my jurisdiction include some extreme right wingers, self proclaimed boogaloo bois and iii%ers. Seems that masks are a benefit to criminals of all ideological stripes.
See these:
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
That's not what I was asking Dan to elaborate on, but rather his comments about them applying to the "opposite end of the spectrum." I certainly hope that he isn't drinking the koolaid about the arson and looting being solely antifa or leftists when evidence indicates otherwise.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
Seriously? They thought the US would try to invade Canada? How? With what? Reconstruction came with a huge cost and invading would have meant war with England. Besides- the country was still reeling from Lincoln's assassination.
Seriously.

The Union army was huge at the end of the war. Unlike the attempts during the War of 1812, it truly would have been just "a matter of marching". The Fenian raids, the Alaska purchase, cancellation of the Canadian–American Reciprocity Treaty and the Manifest Destiny doctrine were all contributing factors to Canadian confederation. They certainly weren't the only factors, but they were not insignificant ones.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
That's not what I was asking Dan to elaborate on, but rather his comments about them applying to the "opposite end of the spectrum." I certainly hope that he isn't drinking the koolaid about the arson and looting being solely antifa or leftists when evidence indicates otherwise.
Now that you explain what you meant, I see. I don't think he meant what you hope he didn't mean, but instead of commenting, I'd rather wait for his reply.
 
Last edited:
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
Canada must feel like they live in an apartment directly above a meth lab.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
I used to work with a guy, an American from upstate NY, who went to McGill University in Montreal. He used to tell me how surprised he was to hear the same widespread fears of US invasion among most Canadian students he knew there. Whether it's true or not, paranoid or not, it is a widely held belief among Canadians. Most Americans, including myself, are surprised by this.

Dan already pointed out some facts of history that are worth repeating.
  • During the Revolutionary War, an American army really did invade Canada in 1775. It failed.
  • In 1845 we took Texas which had rebelled against Mexico, but Mexico still claimed it. In 1846 we really did invade Mexico, taking large portions of land from them, including what would become the states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, as well as portions of Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
  • During the years preceding the US Civil War there were several abortive attempts by Southerners to capture and annex Cuba, Nicaragua and Honduras. Their goal was to annex them as slave-holding territories, with the intention of making them US slave states. Look up William Walker.
Although this was claimed at the time by some, it was far from reality. The USA had banned importing new slaves in 1808. But the international slave trade was banned by Great Britain in 1807, enforcing it in the Atlantic and Caribbean with the Royal Navy. Ever since then, slaves held within the southern US became increasingly valuable. So valuable, that slaves became more valuable than land in some cotton growing areas. The widespread use of US-born slaves in the southern states long after 1808, strongly argues against the idea that slaves were barely necessary because of the advances brought on by the industrial revolution.

In fact, growing cotton with slave labor is what prevented the south from entering and benefiting from the industrial age. Plantation owners would rather sell cotton as a raw material to the industrial north, as well as Great Britain and France. They would rather pocket the profits, than pay for developing any local cotton fabric weaving industry in the south.

So claiming that the industrial revolution had made slaves unnecessary is untrue. If anything, it is part of the false 'revisionist history', spread by the south in the decades after 1880, that claimed the Civil War was not about slavery, but about state's rights.
While Marxist academics may have convinced themselves that the US cultivated designs on Canada, nobody here seriously believes that nowadays. That said, back in the 1920's there were "just in case" invasion plans drawn up in both countries.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
Canada must feel like they live in an apartment directly above a meth lab.
There are moments...

We certainly can't claim to be a harmonious collection of colours and faiths. But, conditions don't seem to become quite as...unhinged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top